> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No, the old design was completely bogus. As proof, Trawick vetoed even > > using the damned thing inside of APR. > > I listed two conditions for the veto: > > 1) something more complex than calling poll() in that situation > 2) something slower than calling poll() in that situation > > It seems to me that the current code meets both conditions, though > not as obnoxiously as code using the older apr_poll() interface would > have.
Can you clarify this please? Does that mean that you are vetoing the current code too? BTW, I don't understand how you can say that calling apr_poll() is more complex than calling poll(), since they have the same API. If your saying that they _only_ solution you will accept is calling poll() itself, then that is completely bogus. Ryan
